With the news that a nurse who took care of an ebola patient has contracted the disease in the U.S., there is more reason for concern.  We are supposed to have the necessary precautions in place to prevent the spread of the disease to health care workers here.  The two patients that were brought back to the U.S. were successfully treated and none of the caretakers contracted the disease.  So it is apparent the precautions in place worked.  But until we figure out what error or errors were committed in the latest case, it is a bit worrisome.  After all, humans make errors even if we are trained and are careful.

At least we know that the virus spread only by close contact when a patient has symptoms.  I think screening at airport is reasonable.  It shouldn't take too long to take the temperature of a passenger as he walks through customs.  This was done in Asia during the SARS epidemic.  It is not 100% effective but I think it at least give travelers a sense of assurance and stop people like Rand Paul who wants to limit traveling from certain areas of Africa to the U.S.

I think of more immediate concern is the spread of enterovirus D68.  Unlike ebola, D68 can be spread by air.  This is means that one can be several feet away and still catch it.  D68 is already in almost every state so we can't screen people by travel history like ebola.  The symptoms are flu like and we are in the flu season so it is difficult to differentiate it from the flu.  Hope people take their children to get the flu shot so that doctors know that it is less likely to be the flu when the kid comes in with flu like symptoms.  It is going to be tough winter for pediatricians and ER doctors!

On a light note, here in LA, the management of the Dodgers and Angels are under fire for losing in the first round of the playoff.  I am sure that is similar in Detroit.  There are mistakes by management to be sure.  But ultimately it is the players who win or lose.  I mean the difference between winning and losing in the playoffs seems most correlated with relief pitching.  That is almost impossible to predict before and even during the season.  Who knew before the season that Brian Wilson couldn't be a set up man?  Who knew that the pitchers of the Royals would be so good?  Last season the Red Sox beat the Tigers because of the bullpen.  This season the Red Sox relievers are terrible.  So I think if a GM can put together a team that win the division, it is hard to fault him for losing a short series playoff.

MSU is getting closer with the results over the weekend.  Too bad Baylor pulled it out.  How are the Red Wings going to be this season?

The LA Times editorial recently called out three Asian American California state senators for backing out of their support for repealing prop 209 which banned affirmative action.  Supposedly the three liberal Democrats withdrew their support because they received "thousands" of complaints from Asian Americans fearing that the repeal will decrease Asian American enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA.  The Times said that the debate should be about whether diversity in universities is a benefit and not whether a particular group gain or lose acceptance letters.

First, I would agree that we should argue whether diversity is important enough to justify racial and "gender" bias.  By the way, if prop 209 is repealed, then gender affirmative action can also be used.  In that case, it would benefit males as they represent less that 45% of the enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA.  I would like to see what liberal female groups think about that!  But by singling out selfish desires of Asian Americans, the Times is being dishonest.  I am sure that Latino and Black groups who want affirmative action are not doing so because of diversity but because they want increase in enrollment of their own group.  If these groups and liberal whites believe diversity is that important then they should have complained about black colleges and women colleges.  Would they come out and say the students in these colleges receive an inferior education due to lack of diversity?  Anyway, I would submit that Berkeley and UCLA is more diverse as it is compared to most elite colleges.  Its white enrollment is less than 40%  compare to some famous liberal art colleges that are 70% plus white.  Asian Americans ARE a diverse group.  There are big difference between East Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, Pacific Islanders etc.  They are also diverse in socio-economic status, immigration history and religious preferences.  They are also diverse in conservative and liberal ideology.  I would argue that a political science student at UCLA would have a more diverse experience than someone at Howard or Amherst.

I do believe that the playing field is not level.  Kids who go to private schools and have SAT tutoring have big advantage over poor kids.  So to me using affirmative action due to socio-economic status is fair.  A kid who came from a poor family and went to a bad school, regardless of race, should be given extra points against my kids when applying to college.  But Obama's kids should not have an advantage against my kids just because their parents are black.  I am sure the president would agree with that.

An aside, MSU and Michigan put up good fights.   The Big Ten could have easily gotten 3 of the final 4 spots.